Genotype-by-Environment Interaction in Interspecific \u3cem\u3eUrochloa\u3c/em\u3e Hybrids Using Factor Analytic Models

Environmental factors can influence plant phenotypes shaping the expression of pastures. The ability to test genotypes in multiple environments is critical in a breeding program because important traits are heavily influenced by the environment. Nutritional quality is critical in forage breeding because it affects the rate of live weight gain in livestock as well as the quality of end products such as milk and meat. However, there is not much information on the environmental effect on agronomic and nutritional quality traits in tropical forages. For this reason, the objective of the present study was to investigate the genotype-by-environment interaction in a breeding population of interspecific Urochloa hybrids evaluated for agronomic and nutritional quality traits across four locations in Colombia, using factor analytic mixed models. Phenotypic correlations among traits ranged from 0.26 (plant area vs dry weight) to 0.93 (fresh weight vs dry weight), indicating a strong interaction in some traits. Genetic correlations among environments showed different ranges depending on the variable evaluated. For example, plant height genetic correlations among environments ranged from 0.16 to 0.9, indicating high genotype-byenvironment interaction. The factor analytic analysis revealed that two factors explained more than 60% of the genetic variance in all traits evaluated and that 80% of the environments were clustered in the first factor. Factor analytic biplot indicates that Llanos location differed strongly from other locations evaluated. Based on the results obtained, the factor analytic analysis is a useful tool to stratify environments and identify Urochloa cultivars adapted to different ecological niches

Model of enteric methane emissions supports climate change mitigation in Colombia’s cattle sector

Key messages ◼ The RUMINANT model qualifies as an advanced or “Tier 3” method for estimating emissions from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock. ◼ The RUMINANT model was validated for enteric methane emissions from cattle in the tropical lowlands (Cauca Valley) of Colombia using six different diets given to feeder steers in 2017. ◼ There was a good correlation between field measurements of enteric fermentation using the polytunnel technique and estimates made using the RUMINANT model. ◼ Based on findings from the validation process, RUMINANT has been used to improve Colombia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the preparation of the sustainable bovine livestock Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) information note. ◼ The RUMINANT model could support the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) phase of the NDCs of Colombia and other countries

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. Results: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. Conclusion: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. © 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Biodiversidad 2016. Estado y Tendencias de la Biodiversidad Continental de Colombia

Esta tercera entrega del reporte anual de la biodiversidad en Colombia profundiza en la línea editorial iniciada el año 2014 mediante nuevas propuestas analíticas y gráficas, con la intención de garantizar que la información llegue a todos los públicos y pueda ser discutida de manera amena sin sacrificio de calidad. La apuesta comunicativa sigue siendo central en el proyecto institucional y los nuevos lenguajes con los que estamos aprendiendo a conversar con la sociedad y las instituciones son un experimento que esperamos sea cada vez más satisfactorio: ya estamos construyendo la versión 2017 con el apoyo de las nuevas tecnologías digitales de manera que la potencia de la conexión vital colombiana se exprese en toda su capacidad. Por los contenidos es evidente que aún distamos mucho de tener una capacidad de seguimiento sistemático para la mayoría de temas relativos a la gestión de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos, la única manera de evaluar si las medidas de política y las inversiones que realiza la sociedad están teniendo los efectos deseados. De hecho, parte de las limitaciones reconocidas por robustamente los cambios positivos o negativos que afectan los diferentes niveles de organización de la vida planetaria, por lo cual las mismas metas de Aichi, nuestra carta de navegación global, están pendientes de verificación. Un propósito adicional de este proceso es la invitación a todos los colombianos para contribuir con la construcción y alimentación de los indicadores básicos de seguimiento a la gestión, ya que es imposible identificar las tendencias de largo plazo en que están inmersas la flora y fauna colombianas sin el apoyo de las instituciones, los investigadores y los ciudadanos: en el país de la megadiversidad, el reto es inmenso. Por este motivo, este reporte irá abriendo sus páginas a expertos, incluso indígenas o de comunidades locales, para que presenten de manera sistemática y documentada sus perspectivas del cambio ambiental y sus efectos en la biodiversidad, con el ánimo de promover el compromiso de todos en su gestión. La única manera de superar el riesgo de extinción es mediante un activo proceso de aprendizajes sociales que haga que todos los sectores asuman una parte de la compleja responsabilidad que significa proteger todas las formas de vida del país, una décima parte mal contada de las planetarias. Agradezco a las decenas de personas que contribuyeron con este reporte, a quienes nos han apoyado en todas las etapas de producción y a sus lectores y usuarios, quienes son en último término los jueces de su utilidad.Bogotá, D. C

Biodiversity 2016. Status and Trends of Colombian Continental Biodiversity

This third volume of the annual report on biodiversity in Colombia continues the editorial line that begun in 2014. Using novel analytical and graphic proposals, these reports have the goal of communicating the contents to a broad public, making it available for discussion without sacrificing the quality of information. The challenge of communication continues to be a major part of the institutional project, and the new languages with which we are learning to communicate with society and other institutions are an experiment that we expect to be increasingly gratifying. The report for 2017 is already under construction and it counts on new digital technologies so the power of a colombian vital connection may be entirely expressed. The included content evidences that we are still far away from having a systematic follow-up about most of the topics related to the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services, which is the only way to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and investments made by society. In fact, a limitation that is recognized is that of identifying positive or negative changes that affect different levels of organization of life on this planet; therefore, our global navigation route of the Aichi targets is still to be verified. An additional purpose of this process includes the invitation of all Colombians to contribute in constructing and maintaining basic monitoring indicators for management since it is impossible to identify long-term trends of flora and fauna in the country without the support of institutions, researchers, and citizens. This challenge is immense in a megadiverse country such as Colombia. For this reason, the report will continue to open its pages to experts, and even indigenous peoples or local communities, for them to present their perspectives about environmental change and its effects on biodiversity in a systematic and documented manner. This has the objective of stimulating the commitment of everyone in the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The only way of overcoming the risk of extinction is through the active process of social learning in which all sectors assume a part of the complex responsibility in protecting the forms of life of the country, a roughly counted tenth of all creatures on Earth. I thank all the people that contributed in this Report, those who have supported us in the phases of production, and all readers and users, who are the ultimate judges of its utility.Bogotá, D. C